How many wars don’t have winners since the objectives were never stated. back in college history I was taught that wars were almost always based on economics. (land , resources,trade…). but after reading the thread about the war of 1812 I seem to find other wars that just happened without resolution or reason.
You could argue that the Falklands conflict of 1982 was a ‘winnerless’ war. Obviously there are people in Argentina, in the Falkland Islands themselves and in the UK who feel very strongly about it, and this is meant with no disrespect to them. However, it was a war with little to gain in terms of resources, land, trade, and all about not losing face.
If I recall correctly, Argentina has long seen British ownership of the Falklands/Malvinas as a thorn in its side, and Britain could not politically be seen to crumble against a third-rate nation (as Argentina was portrayed). An awful lot of lives were lost in a face-saving exercise that re-elected Margaret Thatcher and temporarily boosted British jingoism; I guess the Islanders themselves were the only ‘real’ winners.
We couldn’t possibly give you a list of all the wars with no clear-cut winner. There have been too many of them.
Just the other day I was reading about an indecisive war between the Hittite New Kingdom and Egypt more than 3,000 years ago. Both sides were badly weakened, but there was no clear victor.
And then there was the Korean War. The cease fire pretty much restored the situation to what it was before the North invaded the South. If our objective was to prevent the total annihilation of the South (Aug. 1950), then I guess you could argue that we won. But on the other hand, if our objective was to totally annihilate the North (Nov. 1950), then you could say we lost.
I guess the question is winnerless because there was no specified objective. and lets narrow it down to 1800-2000.
what about the Iran-Iraq war? what were they fighting about? who won?
Well, one of the best examples of a winnerless war was the famous Pelopponesian War, between Athens and Sparta. Strictly speaking, Sparta “won,” but both states were so drained and weakened by that conflict they were easy pickings for the Macedonians, led by Alexander the Great.
If the Spartans had known what lay in store, they’d probably have been happy to do without such a meaningless “victory.”
The War to End All Wars is one of the great misnomers of all time. We can thank that war for the Russian Revolution, World War II, the loss of the empires of France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, and Germany as well as the Cold War and the dozens of teacup tempests that accompanied it. It should have been called The Grandaddy of 'Em All, because that’s what it was.
I’m not sure, but I think it’s possible to show that almost every major participant of WWI and most of the minor ones suffered later defeat or downfall in a war, revolution, or civil war that spawned either directly or indirectly from the First World War, although Vietnam is a bit of a reach. Notable exceptions might be the UK and Turkey, both of which had to contend with loss of empire.
It’s not often one can point to a moment in history and say, “there, that is when today’s troubles began,” but 11:00 am on November 11, 1918 comes mighty close.
justinh: I’ll take a stab at Iran-Iraq.
After the 1979 revolution, Iran was thrown into administrative chaos and the regular armed forces no less so. It was judged by many observers to have lost much of its combat effectiveness. Iraq and Iran had always been regional rivals, with Iran holding the upper hand ( larger population, greater strategic depth, more powerful military - particulary on water and in the air ). The revolution temporarily ( or so it seemed ) shifted this balance in Iraq’s favor and Saddam took a calculated gamble and tried to invade.
The goal was to take Khuzistan, a largely Arab populated, marshy province in Iran’s Southwest. Not only would that gain control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway ( long the central area of dispute between the two nations ) and access to the gulf, but it also contained the bulk of of Iran’s oil industry. In otherwords it was a strategic gem of a prize, both economically and geographically.
Unfortunately Saddam had badly miscalculated and the Iraqi’s got thrashed ( I won’t bother with the details ). That part of the war Iraq lost.
Iran, after expelling Iraq from its soil, followed up on their momentum by invading Iraq, seeking to topple Saddam ( they were righteously pissed 
). They made some gains, but for reasons I won’t go into, soon bogged down. The war then stalemated for years, with Iran holding some territory and launching a long series of offensives, while Iraq largely sat on the defensive, occasionally making ineffectual counter-punches. Eventually material superiority won Iraq some breakthrough victories ( again, I avoid the details 
) and Iran was forced to withdraw and sign an armistice.
So Iraq “won” that phase.
- Tamerlane